GENEALOGY-DNA-L Archives

Archiver > GENEALOGY-DNA > 2006-04 > 1143926505


From: "Glen Todd" <>
Subject: RE: [DNA] an unexpected haplogroup result
Date: Sat, 1 Apr 2006 14:21:45 -0700
In-Reply-To: <442EE55F.9030309@scs.uiuc.edu>


> > The authors also levelled some rather humorous (and in
> > my opinion, fairly valid) criticisms towards the field
> > of genetic genealogy and its obsession with
> > "interpreting the current gene pool as a legacy of
> > past population migrations."
>
> Well, the current gene pool **IS** a legacy of past
> population migrations. That's not debatable, unless you
> define "population migration" to mean "wholesale
> replacement" as opposed to addition. That may be what they
> mean, of course.

Or one of the various fanciful deus ex machina explanations where some force
or power not in evidence simply bypassed all of the natural laws to create
something entirely new that just _happened_ to greatly resemble what had
previously existed but is not related to it at all. (Or all the apparent
older evidence was just made up by this same force to confuse people.)

To reiterate the above point, the current gene pool IS the legacy of past
population migrations. It is, as I put it more poetically in another
forum, the Book of the Blood, and it does not lie - unlike some other books
that purport to tell contradictory stories. The criticism of
"interpreting the current gene pool as a legacy of past population
migrations" is in all probably another way of saying "the evidence does not
support what I _WANT_ to be true, therefore the evidence must be wrong, or
must have to be 're-interpreted' in some incredibly outlandish way to make
it fit". I know that we've all seen this, both on this list and
elsewhere.

The 'wholesale replacement', as has been already more than adequately
demonstrated, did not happen, but migrations unquestionably did happen.
Following them is what this is all about.

Glen


This thread: